When will indyref2 happen?

[GordonS]

17 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Baxter is incorrect when he cites the Acts of Union, but I feel that Ad Lib might have corrected his mistake instead of simply stating that he was wrong.

Article XIX of the Articles of Union (aka the Treaty of Union) provided for the continuation of Scotland's separate legal system. Specifically, it said "no Causes in Scotland be cognizable by the Courts of Chancery, Queen’s Bench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-Hall"

Eventually, interpretation of Article XIX came to court. In the end, the right of the House of Lords to act as the final court of appeal in Scottish civil law cases was confirmed by... The House of Lords

The Supreme Court has now taken over this role.

 

You say "eventually", but the first civil case was at the House of Lords within a year of the union of the Parliaments. Most folk in Scotland in a position to care about civil cases were happy about this because they regarded the Scottish judiciary as corrupt and preferred the English as honest brokers.

At the time there was a presumption that the House of Lords wouldn't take on civil or criminal appeals from Scotland, but nobody cared when it happened.

14 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

The bit you’ve just quoted is about the High Court of Justiciary (for criminal matters).

What that says is that you can’t have another court review or alter the acts or sentences of the High Court.

The UK Supreme Court can’t review or alter the acts or sentences of the High Court.

 

Well... you and I both know there's one major caveat to that. Since ECHR was incorporated into domestic Scots Law in 1999 human rights appeals in Scottish criminal cases have been heard by the JCPC/ Supreme Court. The effect of this is that the Supreme Court absolutely can, and has, effectively overturned Scottish criminal judgements by ruling them incompatible with Convention rights. While you're obviously right that they can't review or alter acts or sentences of the High Court, the legal fiction is maintained by them reviewing acts of the Lord Advocate and the outcome is the same.

Given your background I know I don't have to explain Cadder v HMA, the first line in the judgement of which is: "This is, in effect, an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Justiciary in HM Advocate v McLean...", or Fraser v HMA. They didn't explicitly quash or replace the convictions and remitted them back to the High Court, but they effectively altered the rules of evidence and overturned the precedents set by the High Court in Paton v Ritchie, Dickson v HMA and HMA v McLean. They made it impossible to sustain a conviction achieved through an interview that breached the tests set out in Cadder and the Scottish Government was forced into emergency legislation to avoid thousands of prisoners from being released.

Personally I don't care, because ECHR is the responsibility of member states and if the Supreme Court wasn't in a position to overturn the High Court on human rights then the UK government would have to be. You can't have the courts of a devolved administration be autonomous on matters of international law. 

[GordonS]

17 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Actually, indyref2, as a diehard unionist, I say ‘bring it on’.

The case for is just so weak that, once all the facts and figures are out in the open, I think it will be a resounding NO.

Most of the folks I know who vote SNP do so because they believe that independence will bring ‘a land of milk and honey’.

How wrong can you be.

I voted Brexit out of conviction and prepared myself to be worse off by around 10%. As it happens, I don’t think that will happen but I am ready for it. To be free from the EU, for me, means a lot more than financial prosperity.

However, most of my SNP friends don’t feel that way and my guess is that their heads will overrule their hearts.

Just a few questions for starters

currency

Gers figures are terrible

No more Barnett consequentials

Cut off from the RUK where 60% of our exports go.

Just like regions of England, no more subsidies from London and the South East.(Barnett, basically)

Poor education system

Very few entrepreneurial businesses

Very high public sector
Poor outlook as stated by Andrew Wilson’s growth commission.

So many more but I won’t waste my time

Genuine question: can you explain Finland? 

[Dawson Park Boy]

47 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Genuine question: can you explain Finland? 

Don’t know what you’re on about?

Sorry

[Whitburn Vale]

3 hours ago, Stormzy said:

Would you rather be thriving or self harming? 

More pish....

[SANTAN]

Just now, Whitburn Vale said:

More pish....

Alright so basic question are above your comprehension limits. Thanks for this wonderful interaction.

[Colkitto]

2 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

 

Not often you see Brown grilled like this in interviews

[GordonS]

28 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Don’t know what you’re on about?

Sorry

The arguments you're making about why Scotland would be poorer if it were independent. Well, Finland is independent, on the face of it has a lot less going for it than us, and Finland is very considerably better off than the UK.

I'm wondering if your criteria for what makes a country likely to have a strong economy are right, because in my lifetime I've watched Finland come racing past us, along with literally all of our neighbours, despite them speaking a language only understood by Kilngons, having 6 months of darkness and bugger all natural resources apart from wood, no high achieving universities and being east of Istanbul and north of... everything.

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

Not often you see Brown grilled like this in interviews

That Scottish boy standing in on Sky News mornings is a vast improvement on Kay Burley. He manages to give politicians a decent grilling without seeming like an insufferable arsehole.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/13842512/boris-visit-scotland-nicola-sturgeon-gordon-brown-uk/
UNION PLEA Boris Johnson set to visit Scotland this week on a rescue mission to save the UK
 

Well, Peterhead is now kyboshed so I suppose that only leaves one of the many Anglo-American military establishments we have up here. That will really reset the dial, not.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

3 hours ago, NotThePars said:

 

Every theory that doesn’t get an immediate fail even at secondary school Higher level is based on facts and events lol what does that even mean?

 

It means you don't understand and are blindly opposing something I said cause I said it.  Your lack of understanding is your problem not mine.

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

You say "eventually", but the first civil case was at the House of Lords within a year of the union of the Parliaments. Most folk in Scotland in a position to care about civil cases were happy about this because they regarded the Scottish judiciary as corrupt and preferred the English as honest brokers.

At the time there was a presumption that the House of Lords wouldn't take on civil or criminal appeals from Scotland, but nobody cared when it happened.

Well indeed. The Treaty of Union was not intended to be a bar on subsequently giving the House of Lords that jurisdiction.

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Well... you and I both know there's one major caveat to that. Since ECHR was incorporated into domestic Scots Law in 1999 human rights appeals in Scottish criminal cases have been heard by the JCPC/ Supreme Court. The effect of this is that the Supreme Court absolutely can, and has, effectively overturned Scottish criminal judgements by ruling them incompatible with Convention rights. While you're obviously right that they can't review or alter acts or sentences of the High Court, the legal fiction is maintained by them reviewing acts of the Lord Advocate and the outcome is the same.

All jurisdiction is legal fiction. The Supreme Court (and before that, the Privy Council) reviewed the legality of acts of a public official with reference to the devolution statutes. They didn't challenge the decisions of the High Court of Justiciary itself. Therefore no violation of the Treaty.

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Given your background I know I don't have to explain Cadder v HMA, the first line in the judgement of which is: "This is, in effect, an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Justiciary in HM Advocate v McLean...", or Fraser v HMA. They didn't explicitly quash or replace the convictions and remitted them back to the High Court, but they effectively altered the rules of evidence and overturned the precedents set by the High Court in Paton v Ritchie, Dickson v HMA and HMA v McLean. They made it impossible to sustain a conviction achieved through an interview that breached the tests set out in Cadder and the Scottish Government was forced into emergency legislation to avoid thousands of prisoners from being released.

Or put another way, the UK Supreme Court ensured that a member of the Scottish Government complied with his obligations under the Scotland Act, through the bespoke jurisdiction provided for by the Scotland Act (as amended by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005).

Can this settlement be regarded as a form of "back door" appeal? Sure. But it's not incompatible with the Treaty of Union, properly construed.

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Personally I don't care, because ECHR is the responsibility of member states and if the Supreme Court wasn't in a position to overturn the High Court on human rights then the UK government would have to be. You can't have the courts of a devolved administration be autonomous on matters of international law. 

Well quite.

[Ad Lib]

19 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Baxter is incorrect when he cites the Acts of Union, but I feel that Ad Lib might have corrected his mistake instead of simply stating that he was wrong.

Your concern is noted.

I did go on to explain why he was wrong.

19 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Article XIX of the Articles of Union (aka the Treaty of Union) provided for the continuation of Scotland's separate legal system. Specifically, it said "no Causes in Scotland be cognizable by the Courts of Chancery, Queen’s Bench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-Hall"

Eventually, interpretation of Article XIX came to court. In the end, the right of the House of Lords to act as the final court of appeal in Scottish civil law cases was confirmed by... The House of Lords

Because it isn't one of the listed courts that now (mostly) form part of the English High Court/Court of Appeal, and because it isn't a court in Westminster Hall. The House of Lords may have had the final say on whether it had jurisdiction, but its finding that it did is entirely consistent with the plain meaning of the words used in Article XIX.

[NotThePars]

It means you don't understand and are blindly opposing something I said cause I said it.  Your lack of understanding is your problem not mine.

I never said I disagreed with the initial claim just your framing as ever is laughably stupid and wielding your degree like a cudgel is really funny. It’s not impressive, sorry!

[Dawson Park Boy]

47 minutes ago, GordonS said:

The arguments you're making about why Scotland would be poorer if it were independent. Well, Finland is independent, on the face of it has a lot less going for it than us, and Finland is very considerably better off than the UK.

I'm wondering if your criteria for what makes a country likely to have a strong economy are right, because in my lifetime I've watched Finland come racing past us, along with literally all of our neighbours, despite them speaking a language only understood by Kilngons, having 6 months of darkness and bugger all natural resources apart from wood, no high achieving universities and being east of Istanbul and north of... everything.

Fair enough

I will do some research into Finland about which I know very little.

Regarding Scotland, Andrew Wilson, in his report for the SNP, makes it very clear that we will need a good number of years of austerity to get our public finances in order. Obviously, if sovereignty is your main motivation (as with myself regarding Brexit), then that is not a problem. However, some of our fellow citizens might have a different view.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

20 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

I never said I disagreed with the initial claim just your framing as ever is laughably stupid and wielding your degree like a cudgel is really funny. It’s not impressive, sorry!

 

I didn't mention my degree, I didn't frame it any way, I cited the theory.  Then you, typically, attempted to attack me.

[GordonS]

28 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Fair enough

I will do some research into Finland about which I know very little.

Regarding Scotland, Andrew Wilson, in his report for the SNP, makes it very clear that we will need a good number of years of austerity to get our public finances in order. Obviously, if sovereignty is your main motivation (as with myself regarding Brexit), then that is not a problem. However, some of our fellow citizens might have a different view.

I think we'd probably borrow for a while and try to grow the economy to match, rather than cut public services. It's also worth saying that it's not a choice between independence and the status quo, it's a choice between independence and whatever happens to the UK in future - both could be good, or we could be screwed either way. It's a subject on which reasonable people should be able to reasonably disagree.

[GordonS]

49 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Well indeed. The Treaty of Union was not intended to be a bar on subsequently giving the House of Lords that jurisdiction.

I think a lot of people at the time, including some of those writing it, understood that it would be a bar on any cases being decided in an English court. But our "flexible" constitution took care of business. 

Quote

All jurisdiction is legal fiction.

That's a thought that's going to fester.

Quote

 

The Supreme Court (and before that, the Privy Council) reviewed the legality of acts of a public official with reference to the devolution statutes. They didn't challenge the decisions of the High Court of Justiciary itself. Therefore no violation of the Treaty.

Or put another way, the UK Supreme Court ensured that a member of the Scottish Government complied with his obligations under the Scotland Act, through the bespoke jurisdiction provided for by the Scotland Act (as amended by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005).

Can this settlement be regarded as a form of "back door" appeal? Sure. But it's not incompatible with the Treaty of Union, properly construed.

 

I agree, but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to take a different position. While the Supreme Court isn't strictly speaking reversing acts of the High Court, it's definitely reversing acts of the Scottish criminal system, which arguably is contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of Union. It's a fact that the Supreme Court has changed our rules of evidence, and as a consequence forced the High Court to make different judgements on criminal procedure than it otherwise would have done. Evidence and procedure are utterly intrinsic to the criminal law of any legal system.

You're saying that the Supreme Court ensures that a member of the Scottish Government complied with their obligations under the Scotland Act (I refuse to say "his" when referring to Elish) in a matter of criminal law, but it would be fair to question why the Supreme Court should have jurisdiction and why there is any court between Edinburgh and Strasbourg on a matter of criminal law. I'm just about with you on it but I don't think it's a closed question.

[Dawson Park Boy]

37 minutes ago, GordonS said:

I think we'd probably borrow for a while and try to grow the economy to match, rather than cut public services. It's also worth saying that it's not a choice between independence and the status quo, it's a choice between independence and whatever happens to the UK in future - both could be good, or we could be screwed either way. It's a subject on which reasonable people should be able to reasonably disagree.

Excellent response.

Like your idea about ‘growing the economy’ but what’s been holding us back up till now?

Unfortunately, the present SG has a woeful record on the economy.

Ferries - still not completed.

Prestwick Airport

Green Jobs- hardly any. All manufacturing done overseas.

Very few hi tech industries . Just look around Cambridge.

Anyway, nice to have a reasonable discussion with you.

 

[GordonS]

Just now, Dawson Park Boy said:

Excellent response.

Like your idea about ‘growing the economy’ but what’s been holding us back up till now?

Unfortunately, the present SG has a woeful record on the economy.

Ferries - still not completed.

Prestwick Airport

Green Jobs- hardly any. All manufacturing done overseas.

Very few hi tech industries . Just look around Cambridge.

Anyway, nice to have a reasonable discussion with you.

 

Well, when I look at Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland, for starters, I think I see countries that are more responsive to the needs of their economies. The UK government is responsive to the needs of the UK economy, which is naturally heavily skewed to the south-east.

SG has very little control over the economy. They have no powers over corporation tax or capital gains tax, for starters, and no real funding for investment.

The examples you give are mostly pretty small potatoes, but we hear a lot about them because failures are news while successes aren't and because our journalists are shite. We're doing well in biosciences, space, food and drink, tourism and financial services. Oil and gas is now firmly on the way out but there's a bit more to be made from it yet. Our major infrastructure spending has been incredibly effective. Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen are in the top 10 in the UK for foreign investment. Unemployment is generally no worse than the UK level despite more entrenched poverty and we've got world class universities.

That can all be argued over, of course. I think if we had to ring our own till then we'd pay a lot more attention to the economy than we do now, though.

I just can't see a way of looking at Scotland and saying it would be worse off independent while every comparable country is doing better than the UK. What's uniquely shit about us?

Bottom line for me is that I don't know if we'd be better or worse off independent but I'm very confident we're facing decades of decline if we stay. The government that England elects habitually follow paths that our neighbours have shown us are the wrong way to go, and that's not going to change any time soon. I'm 45 years old and in my lifetime the only Labour leader England has elected is Tony Blair, who was hardly a Scandi social democrat. They've gone further and further right and the only people that ever helps are the rich - but a strong economy needs to use the talents of all the people, and not have the massive social drag of an underclass.

[Dawson Park Boy]

54 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Well, when I look at Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland, for starters, I think I see countries that are more responsive to the needs of their economies. The UK government is responsive to the needs of the UK economy, which is naturally heavily skewed to the south-east.

SG has very little control over the economy. They have no powers over corporation tax or capital gains tax, for starters, and no real funding for investment.

The examples you give are mostly pretty small potatoes, but we hear a lot about them because failures are news while successes aren't and because our journalists are shite. We're doing well in biosciences, space, food and drink, tourism and financial services. Oil and gas is now firmly on the way out but there's a bit more to be made from it yet. Our major infrastructure spending has been incredibly effective. Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen are in the top 10 in the UK for foreign investment. Unemployment is generally no worse than the UK level despite more entrenched poverty and we've got world class universities.

That can all be argued over, of course. I think if we had to ring our own till then we'd pay a lot more attention to the economy than we do now, though.

I just can't see a way of looking at Scotland and saying it would be worse off independent while every comparable country is doing better than the UK. What's uniquely shit about us?

Bottom line for me is that I don't know if we'd be better or worse off independent but I'm very confident we're facing decades of decline if we stay. The government that England elects habitually follow paths that our neighbours have shown us are the wrong way to go, and that's not going to change any time soon. I'm 45 years old and in my lifetime the only Labour leader England has elected is Tony Blair, who was hardly a Scandi social democrat. They've gone further and further right and the only people that ever helps are the rich - but a strong economy needs to use the talents of all the people, and not have the massive social drag of an underclass.

Decent response but based on hope rather than reality.

However, you’re only 45, so you’re entitled to be aspirational unlike myself who’s well into retirement.

Good luck to you.